Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the sixth Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his 1992 report: “An Agenda For Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking And Peace-Keeping,” more commonly known as An Agenda for Peace, identified human rights as one of the solutions in response to conflicts in the post-Cold War world. The irony of this statement lies in the fact that self-determination though recognized as a ‘right’ of all peoples, through the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 in 1960 and subsequently affirmed in the two International Human Rights Covenants in 1966, has rarely been presented as a peaceful solution to conflicts between States and Peoples. Rather, States have reconstructed the language of self-determination in such a narrow way to protect their own interests. For instance, Bangladesh in 1971 exercised its self-determination to become an independent country, but denied the people of their right to the Chittagong Hill Tracts. This classic irony reveals that once States get their independence, they are reluctant to accord that same right to peoples living within its boundary with or without their consent.
The UN’s inability to uphold the right to self-determination of all peoples has encouraged conflict and undermined its purpose to promote world peace. When people are given the right to self-determination, it is often suppressed by a sovereign State. This dominant practice indicates that the international community tends to support the State’s territorial integrity until a war of independence is successful; thereby contradicting the UN’s objective to secure peace in the world. How long will the policy and practice of settling the problem on the battlefield continue? Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein cautions, “if the international community does not change its present policy, we will probably see the collapse of more large states in civil wars.” Hans Köchler points out that “insisting on the status quo may well lead to the destabilization of entire regions – with uncontrollable consequences for global peace.” Kumar Rupesinghe further notes, “while there are risks involved in reforming the international system to taking into account demands for self-determination,” he cautions that, “the greater danger for the global community lies in clinging to an unresponsive status quo.”
Struggling peoples seek justice in their relations with the State. This fundamentally involves restoring respect that will empower them to create a framework of peaceful coexistence in both thought and action. These actions are based on fully acknowledging their right to self-determination. This relational form of justice is essential to JustPeace, since it explicitly allows for differences while promoting forming just relationships, and genuine respect and dignity throughout the circle of interdependency. Given that no region in the world is immune from conflicts due to the denial of self-determination, it is evident that there is a need to develop processes and mechanisms that address conflicts through peaceful means. While pursuing peaceful settlement it is important to recognize that self-determination is one of the primary resources for JustPeace; and its denial will only lead to future conflict.
